Seriously. Imagine a world where you really think you can control the earth’s climate; and you think that control was figured out in a political meeting in Paris; and all that has to happen now is for people to do what you tell them to do.

Can you please tell me how any of this is different from Mayan sacrifice to the Gods? Other than, the Mayans didn’t know any better.

My guests tonight talk about Muslim immigration.

First, author and president of the Middle East ForumDaniel Pipes says that he has a one word objection to Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Then Canadian security expert David Harris talks about the alleged "screening process" that Syrian refugees to Canadasupposedly undergo. Can you really screen for terrorism, especially when operating under politically correct "rules of engagement"?

Finally, I read some of your viewer mail, including one of the funniest (and most generous) messages I've received so far!

I want to hear from you, too. Please comment below, or reach out via social media. I give out all the contact information at the end of every show!

Comments

ANDREWSTEPHENSON, thank you for the lively discussion (without ad hominems). First off, my point about volcanism is that it’s vastly underevaluated and in fact NOBODY knows the input, and therefore it’s unquantifiable. What we do know is that since 1990 the calculated input has been more than tripled, despite only a small fraction being evaluated. Moreover, volcanism also may affect other earth processes, such as sea-level, which may result in other feedbacks. Some say that volcanism and Milankovitch Cycles may be related also. It’s omething that hasn’t been properly quantified cannot be properly dismissed, and I mentioned it more out of interest. And to clarify—you seem to assume volcanism needs to be catastrophic and something we’d notice; outgassing of volcanoes is fairly constant, such as at spreading ridges. If there are 3 million + volcanoes and account for only a fraction of those, how do you know there’s NOT an increase in volcanism? In other words, we don’t know enough, leave alone enough make predictive models that fail to predict anything.

All of this still doesn’t address the biggest player in the carbon cycle: the oceans. I find you’re statements about isotopic “equilibrium” to be erroneous, and that’s putting it mildly. Carbon 14 is radioactive, therefore it is in itself not in equilibrium. The entire method of C14 dating is based on this fact—it’s constantly decaying and therefore not in equilibrium—thank goodness, or else we’d have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics out the window. In fact the Suess Effect is based on this disequilibrium—the Suess Effect is there to account for carbon dating contamination; not solely by fossil fuels, but in fact by the larger carbon budget (e.g the Oceans).

There is no “global” C14/C12 value, and while you didn’t say that specifically, the term “equilibrium” encompasses such an assumption—rather, it’s affected by atmospheric circulation, geomagnetism, cosmic influx, vegetation and most importantly marine effect (i.e. not in equilibrium—the whole rationale of natural atmospheric C14 and C13 enrichment is based on fractionation which would not occur in ‘equilibrium’)—there are local variabilities, just as there are global variabilities with oxygen isotopes which also fractionate differently with respect to latitude (i.e. not in equilibrium). Suess himself approximated that only 1% of contamination was due to fossil fuel addition, mind you this was in 1951, so that may have increased. Regardless even if it’s now 10%, that’s 90% of contamination by other sources which Suess postulated “is absorbed by the oceans must be greater than previously assumed.” I’ll stick with Suess on this one. The current climate alarmists however assume the Suess Effect is 100% attributed to fossil fuel emissions. That’s where you and I apparently disagree.

Now you can read a good news much better than result of the paris conference! We now have a new alternative to the global energy and this is very important.
A NEWSCIENTIFICFORMULADISCOVERY TO END OF GLOBALWARMING!
(Ee&gt;Ep+E1at) = (E&gt;P+1at)
What is the most difficult scientific question of global hydroelectric that no one scientists could the answer to it?
Now the hard global question!
How can we produce clean energy in a best way by the potential of water Static head in dams & seas that this water pressure can push to the center of planet?
Answer:
This is by getting benefit of joint scientific formula (E&gt;P+1at) with immersion turbine method inside the water of dams & seas.
Ee= High pressure clean energy that is produced by the water power plants in the depth of water via released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure (More than ten meters of water) with new method (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero resultant forces).
Ep= Released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure in water depth (More than ten meters of water).
E1at= Amount of energy that is consumed at a small pump of one atmosphere power is the ability (In the same place of the water power plant in water depth).
This new method is as like as old method of energy production in dams.
The difference is that the volumetric capacity of atmosphere can be made with equipment (Boxes cycle of pipes).
With help of this new formula in any depth of water you can get the powerful clean energy!
This new method can help us to transfer of volumetric capacity of the atmosphere to the deep water!
Natural pressure of water in any depth of water can help to exit water in the boxes cycle of pipes that they installed at the same depth (New power plant of developed hydroelectric).
This new formula and new method will produce cheap energy in the world and they can change the world soon!
Now this scientific new formula and this new method that has been registered officially by the Ministry of Justice of Kurdistan Regional Government under the No. 952/6 from 12th of June,2013 and it has been accepted officially & scientifically by all relevant ministries of KRG. This important and worldwide subject will obtain clean energy that we can say it is parallel to the attempts of Mr. Obama, The president of United States of America for Cutting Carbon Emissions by 30% by 2030 The importance of this invention is to decrease the rate of carbon and decrease the duration from 2030 to downwards.
I am an environmental researcher and inventor. I could answer of the most difficult question of global hydroelectric. It is normal that you do not believe, but it is true really. For more information: (Only alternative for the future of the human energy that has just been discovered)
The latest research achievements of water science:
Discover a new scientific formula of water (Answer of the most difficult question of global hydroelectric):
Do not worry because new formula discover can solve the world environment problems (Ee&gt;Ep+E1at). The use of oil and gas has ended really! This new formula works with its new method (Immersion Turbines in depth of sea in zero resultant forces). Thus in power generation, water does not exit from the dams! This is a new industrial revolution in the world. All the scientists in the world are in the shock now. With this great discovery will solve the problem of global warming too. It is a scientific fact. I found the answer a question of science that hundreds of years, scientists are looking for answers. Now the time has come to say that we could find a new theory to produce clean energy more powerful than atomic energy:
The scientific use of the formula (Ee&gt; Ep+E1at) and the most advanced new method of producing electricity from immersion turbines in depth of seas and oceans water. With amazing discover of a new clean energy formula in depth of water (E&gt;P+1at). The immersion turbine method in depth of sea is the base of this new model. This invention can change the world and it can start a new industrial revolution in the world. Many scientists believe that the discovery of the formula is unparalleled. Although many still in shock! How this formula has not be discovered by scientists in the world. This invention is patented in Department of Justice in Kurdistan of Iraq No. 952/6 on 12/6/2013. You can read the articles of (Change the world with Kurdistan ’s industrial revolution) and (A Kurdish inventor has found a new method for electricity production under water).
I do not have to navigate on the surface and at depth. This new formula works with its new method (Immersion Turbines in depth of sea in zero resultant forces). Thus in power generation, water does not exit from the dams! This is a simple form of advanced technology. Constant power plants in water can helps to transfer the energy to the cities. Power transmission cabling system must be secure and safe of industrial. My work is not too important! I just answer a scientific question. Answer to a hard question that scientists are searching for hundreds of years. My new formula and new method can change the world and start a new industrial revolution soon. This invention is patented in Department of Justice in Kurdistan of Iraq No. 952/6 on 12/6/2013. All the scientists have accepted this theory. Investigate the truth is simple. I have to say that this method is very new. It is different from with all the old ways of hydroelectric that we knew them (Hydroelectric of dams and waves and lagoon power plant). Note: This new solution and this new formula invention in Iraq and Turkey to formally accepted.

Kürt mühendisten elektrik üretim projesi

Note: In formula (Ee is bigger than Ep add E1at ) is true and the formula at the time of print in page did become dellite!

Please, Jay Kelly, don’t be daft. This is prayer rooms. Meaning women and men don’t have the privilege to pray together, something we in western cultures totally take for granted. Are there some prayers women shouldn’t hear? Or men for that matter? It’s ridiculous on its face, though they should be allowed to do so in their own private freedoms. Doing so on the public dime however, is something we can’t stand for.
Besides, many of you sjw progressive types believe you should be able to use the washroom of your preferred “gender expression” . So I guess in your world any muslim could go to their preferred gender prayer room. Now there’s a real lark!

Although the sound quality on the Daniel Pipes interview was poor, I still disagree with him,
The whole "Islamist vs Islam discussion has run out of gas…,
We, as the stupid sheep that we are should expect our Federal Gov
to not have an informative agenda and to not allow the dilution pool of the electorate to achieve this?Motive plays a large part in this.And Mr. Pipe chooses to nit pick while our countries are swamped.

Nothing wrong with Ezra offering to read all mail he gets for a thousand dollars. Who knows, maybe some leftists will take Ezra up on it. Leftists can write to Ezra, with lots of leftist rantings, to make sure that it gets featured on the show.

If we’re going to keep focussing on American right-wing politics, can we please start to give someone other than Trump airtime? I think it’s well established by now, even by your own show, that while he may be a good populist, he refuses to take sophisticated, compassionate approaches. I’m sure the GOP has plenty to offer besides him, or Jeb or Christi, for that matter. If Trump’s policies are rash and his populism overly blunt, can’t we do the best thing as media and not give him overwrought attention?

“ANDREWSTEPHENSON – the oceans are by far the biggest part of the carbon cycle and Suess attributes much of the depletion to this, yet you chose to overlook this. As for your mentioning of volcanoes being inconsequential you don’t understand my post (even though I disagree with you as a total source of carbon, since the number of submarine volcanoes are grossly undersestimated in an order of magnitude scale). My point is that C14 and C13 depleted carbon is not solely sourced by fossil fuels. The USGS reports that volcanism (again this is in my opinion underestimated) spews 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 per year; that represents sources of C14 and C13 depleted CO2. The same goes with the goes with isotopic exchange with bicarbonate. There’s NOT a sole contributor to Suess Effect which makes the measurement specious. ’

You are correct in that volcanic emissions are depleted in higher isotopes of carbon.

However, what you’re missing is quite simple – it’s not the total amount of depleted carbon that’s the issue, it’s the change over time. Prior to 1800 there was an equilibrium state, where volcanic emissions, biological carbon, and cosmic ray spallation (the source of C14) all balanced. What we do when we dump C12 into the atmosphere is distort the atmospheric ratios from the equilibrium, and that is the actual basis of the Suess effect.

In essence, if volcanoes emit 1Mt a year, and cosmic spallation generates 100t a year, your equilibrium ratio is going to be about 1/10,000. If, by burning fossil fuels, you now emit 2Mt of depleted carbon a year (half volcanic, half anthropogenic), that 100t of C14 doesn’t change – your production ratio does. Your new equilibrium ratio is now only 1/20,000. In fact, it’s more complex than this, since turnover is over thousands of years in fact your ratio will change by only a small part of that, say fro 1/10,000 to 1/10005 in that year – but it also allows us to very precisely calculate emissions. Similarly, if you stop emitting fossil fuel carbon, the natural turnover will tend to reduce it back toward the natural equilibrium.

Because it’s relative to a pre-existing equilibrium. it’s actually deviations from that long time average over time that matter. So … volcanism would only be an explanation IF there were a sudden uptick in it over the last few centuries. There is no evidence this is the case. How do we know? Global sulphur, dust, and carbon dioxide is not the only element we can test isotopic ratios on (best known is oxygen, which distills out in glaciers in a ratio of O16/O18 that depends on global average temperatures). The ratios are so precise that they can tell you how much coal was burned in a specific year, just by its isotopic traces in things like tree rings.

What have we determined using these precise ratios? That the atmospheric building of carbon dioxide is nearly half of the total fossil fuels burned in the last 200 years, and there’s about that much again dissolved as carbonic acid in the ocean. This is actually extremely strong evidence of the human origin of this carbon dioxide.

Although your extremely generous assumption of volcanic activity is an interesting case study, it’s actually irrelevant unless they only just started being active, gradually, over about 200 years. Even if they are emitting at that rate, it’s pretty clear that environmental sequestration was capable of disposing of those volumes, probably through subduction of mostly biogenic marine carbonates promoting that previous equilibrium. The rate of carbon emission has doubled in a few decades, we would have noticed something of that magnitude were it geological.

In case anyone cares what the Bible says here is a quote:
Ephesians 3:21
To him be glory in the church, and in Christ Jesus unto all generations, world without end. Amen.
In case any of you climate changers care, please note those last four words.

Elizabeth May makes me gnawziated. This woman can fell trees for parliamentary stationary. I swear that this beaver lives in lodge in some dammed up stream north of Cochrane. She must file her additional living expenses to parliament as GPS co-ordinates to qualify for her entitlements. Go back to the lodge and enjoy your case of wine over the winter months. We’ll see you again in the spring.

ANDREWSTEPHENSON – the oceans are by far the biggest part of the carbon cycle and Suess attributes much of the depletion to this, yet you chose to overlook this. As for your mentioning of volcanoes being inconsequential you don’t understand my post (even though I disagree with you as a total source of carbon, since the number of submarine volcanoes are grossly undersestimated in an order of magnitude scale). My point is that C14 and C13 depleted carbon is not solely sourced by fossil fuels. The USGS reports that volcanism (again this is in my opinion underestimated) spews 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 per year; that represents sources of C14 and C13 depleted CO2. The same goes with the goes with isotopic exchange with bicarbonate. There’s NOT a sole contributor to Suess Effect which makes the measurement specious.

The IPCC cites the USGS’ numbers and are based on Gerlach (1991). The USGS maintains that their estimates are split roughly equal between subaerial and submarine volcanism. This is an absurd assumption. Gerlach used his numbers based on 7 subaerial volcanoes and 3 vent sites, which isn’t even statistically viable. Conservative estimates of the number of submarine volcanoes number between 20,000 and 55,000 with 2000 (i.e. ~4-10%)active at any given time. In point of fact, if you read Lupton et al. (2006: “Submarine venting of liquid carbon dioxide on a Mariana Arc volcano”) submarine volcanoes literally have pools of liquid CO2 in depressions around sites. More recent estimates of submarine volcanoes? Hiller and Watts (2007: “Global distribution of seamounts from ship- track bathymetry data”) tracked the existence of at least 201,055 seamounts, and that’s only what they tracked. When they extrapolated this throughout the entire ocean and mid-ocean ridge system, the estimates for total seamounts worldwide was on the order of 3.4 Million! Compare that to 1500 subaerial volcanoes, but moreover, the assumption the USGS’ put for that aerial and submarine volcanism is roughly equal is patently absurd. In fact this puts Gerlach’s (as adopted by the USGS). If 1500 subaerial volcanoes plus 1500 submarine volcanoes account for (conservatively) 130 million tonnes of CO2, then what adding 3.4 million submarine volcanoes add to this picture? Even if only 4-10% are active at any given time?

“For the deniers: Please explain the 5-year moving average in the following graph: ”http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. If it’s hard, please never consider yourself qualified to comment on anything having to do with science. "

More shameless usage of ADJUSTED temperature data, rather than the much more reliable satellite data. As the source paper says, “As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record.”

By the way, nobody denies climate changes, and that it’s warmed since the late 1880’s. But 0.8 degrees warming is hardly catastrophic, and certainly not caused by man, and when incorporating error margins of about 0.5 degrees, possibly even more nominal. Expect El Nino upticks in warmth for 2015, (just as in 1998), which won’t be labeled as an outlier due to it’s convenience, though all volcanic eruptions have been (appropriately) removed due to their anomalous cooling. All of this while seeing NO warming in the troposphere in over 18 years as measured by satellite and weather balloons, basically making so-called “warming” a refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (hint: the troposphere should warm before the surface).

“Suess himself estimated that fossil fuels account for less than 1% of the measured effect and that other sources haven’t been properly accounted for, in which case the fingerprinting of manmade-CO2 would become problematic (for example, magmatic carbon is largely depleted in C13, which would make volcanism a source of depletion as well as the oceans). This caveat by Suess has gone largely ignored. "

It’s not ignored, it’s been studied and found to be a relatively minor contributor. Volcanic emissions have been found to be relatively minor, and there is no obvious alternative source that wouldn’t be approximately constant over moderate to long term frames. At the time the effect was proposed, the instrumentation to detect the effect was extremely crude and not useful for much more than proof-of-concept experiments rather than detailed analysis. Now, they can analyze microscopic air bubbles in ice and determine isotopic ratios to parts-per-billion. They have determined approximately how much carbon dioxide is volcanically emitted. Mount St. Helens, for example, released abotut 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in its big eruption; which is about what the United States emitted as a whole in 4 months circa 1981. As you might guess, human emissions are huge.

More importantly, they represent a perturbation to the previous equilibrium. 280ppm was the average of natural emission – including volcanoes – and absorption averaged over millenia. We’ve gone and dumped another 125 ppm into it.

NATHAN W – "Well if you take 1kg of carbon and burn it, then that’s 1kg of carbon emissions. The emission part happens when it’s converted into a gas, which then becomes part of the atmosphere. "

This just shows how out of depth you are. First of all if you “burn” a kg of carbon you get a kg of carbon that’s been burned; carbon is a solid that comes in the form of various polymorphs; graphite, diamond and buckminsterfullerene. You’re probably referring to coal, or say biproducts of other fossil fuels, or even of lime production which utilizes limestone to produce which has a CO2 biproduct; still if you burn a tonne of limestone you don’t get a tonne of CO2, that would refute the laws of conservation of mass. That same goes for coal (e.g. anthracite, bitimunous coal, lignite) and fossil fuels.

But I mention all of this just to underscore your error—I just hope you’re not teaching any of our children. Even the emissions that do come from burning anything, which can be calculated by theoretical mass balance, aren’t what’s used to calculate human emissions simply because it would be impossible to do so; between impurities, inefficiencies (nothing burns 100% efficiently to produce 100% work, to what each person emits, to deforestation and lignin decomposition, to individual automobile usage, to industry, it can’t be done. In fact, it’s measured by assumptions of the Suess Effect; fossil fuels are depleted in C14 (carbon-14) and C13 (carbon-13) isotopes. Scientists measure a units of air, and calculate the ratios of C14 to C13 to C12, and those units of air depleted in C14 and C13 are assumed representative of the ratio of CO2 produced by humans versus natural (which are enriched in C14, and not as depleted in C13).

There are a number of assumptions made about the Suess Effect, principally that only fossil fuels are responsible for depleted C14 and C13. To quote Hans Suess himself (CAPS added for emphasis): “The decrease [i.e. C14 depletion] can be attributed to the introduction of a certain amount of C14-free CO2 into the atmosphere by artificial coal and oil combustion AND TO THERATE OF ISOTOPICEXCHANGEBETWEENATMOSPHERIC CO2 ANDBICARBONATEDISSOLVED IN THEOCEANS.” The degree of this latter isotopic exchange has been dismissed as inconsequential, and hence a non-factor, however, there is little rational for this. Suess himself estimated that fossil fuels account for less than 1% of the measured effect and that other sources haven’t been properly accounted for, in which case the fingerprinting of manmade-CO2 would become problematic (for example, magmatic carbon is largely depleted in C13, which would make volcanism a source of depletion as well as the oceans). This caveat by Suess has gone largely ignored.

Ezra wants you to actually believe that assessing and addressing the impact of fossil fuels and how to control them was figured out in a political meeting in Paris? Did he tell you the research by Env Canada the EPA, NASA The focus is on controlling the human impact on our planet’s atmosphere. How does a wise species respond denial, disregard, negligence Exxon is being investigated for misleading politicians, investors workers and citizens about the threats posed by damaging our planets atmosphere with greenhouse gases . Is it a from of mental illness to not care about the web of life that sustains life on our planet or criminal negligence. Anyone looking for work is wise not to voice the perspective of Ezra or Trump on climate if you want to be seen an an intelligent moral person. If you don’t think you and humanity have a fundamental need and right to a clean non damaged environment you should talk to your teachers / professors / journalist who failed to inform you that extensive damage to fish, forests, water, soils species, ocean and terrestrial ecosystems our planets atmosphere threaten our future. The leaders of the UN, EU US CA BC AB ON QC CDN China the Rockefeller foundation the Gates foundation and the Pope are engaged in climate action but Ezra still hasn’t figured it out yet that damaging our planets atmosphere is a serious threat to our future . Does that sound intelligent ?

John Kerry…what an ineffectual useless waste of a life! No one is accountable…no one has to do anything…so we all lose and China and India win and continue their massive pollution while we deny ourselves our tiny miniscule pollution…cool? This is not a climate change conference, it IS a religious event with no basis in reality.

For the deniers: Please explain the 5-year moving average in the following graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. If it’s hard, please never consider yourself qualified to comment on anything having to do with science.

That was already explained to you the other day when you pulled that crap. How many times do you leftist loons have to be told.

Yes, let’s be hopeless. Everything is beyond our control so just do whatever the right wing hacks tell you to do.
Rae – how do they figure out carbon emissions? Well if you take 1kg of carbon and burn it, then that’s 1kg of carbon emissions. The emission part happens when it’s converted into a gas, which then becomes part of the atmosphere.

For the deniers: Please explain the 5-year moving average in the following graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. If it’s hard, please never consider yourself qualified to comment on anything having to do with science.

Ezra, Great show as always! Every time I see Elizabeth May, I throw up in my mouth a little. Nothing good ever comes out of her trap. Whether it’s Climate, Omar Khadr, or Conservatism, you can be sure she’s on the other side of the fence from reality. She reminds me of some kind of wrinkled old cougar holding up a bar stool. Her fan club pal looked like she was going to explode. The media, well lets just say that was disgusting. You would swear they were watching the successful landing of a manned mission to Mars.

Ezra, great show as always, but I am offset by something you said. During your feedback segment you claimed that if someone sends in $1,000, they’ll have a guaranteed reading on-air. At least that’s how it came across to me. I can’t begrudge you that too harshly, but it does sound like capital favoritism if you ask me.